Byron White, Chambers v. Nasco Inc. — Opinion of the Court
“ Interrupting the proceedings on the merits to conduct sanctions hearings may serve only to reward a party seeking delay. More importantly, while the sanction was not assessed until the conclusion of the litigation, Chambers received repeated timely warnings both from NASCO and the court that his conduct was sanctionable. Cf. Thomas v. Capital Security Services, Inc., 836 F.2d 866, 879-881 (CA5 1988) (en banc) . Consequently, the District Court's reliance on the inherent power did not represent an end run around the notice requirements of Rule 11. ”
